- May 8, 2007
- 48,686
- 71,373
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #2,551
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 14
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
EUFA EURO 2024 - Group Stage ⚽ EPL 24/25 starts Aug 17
Do yourself a favor and read his posts.
Explains why the weather is behaving like it is better than any alarmist or fire-chief
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.www.facebook.com
Your loss.Cheers, but I don't need to read his stuff to identify scientific fraud when I see it.
Your loss.
His latest on "Cyclones, Typhoons and Hurricanes. Are these the heat exhaust vacuums for the tropics" is fascinating
And?
And?And?
Watch these clips and then think about how these sole factors render climate computer prediction models redundant.
.
"...........no two Indian Ocean dipole events, and no two set of impacts are the same..........."
Weather /= climate
.
"...........no two set of SAM events, and no two set of impacts are exactly the same..........."
Now take this information and add in countless more variables and you will get some idea why the majority of climate prediction models should be ignored.
??????????
Whats the challenge?Well how about you take the climate change challenge?
Being anti-fascist is a political side now?And?
So they dont take political sides?
Being supporters of ANTIFA is political, and in Gretas words "I'm sometimes called ”political". But I've never supported any political party, politician or ideology."Being anti-fascist is a political side now?
Denying neo-nazis and white supremacists a platform is generally good business.
Denouncing nazis and white supremacist is not political.Being supporters of ANTIFA is political, and in Gretas words "I'm sometimes called ”political". But I've never supported any political party, politician or ideology."
Good to see your an active supporter of ANTIFA, why am I not surprisedDenouncing nazis and white supremacist is not political.
It’s the mark of a decent human.
Good to see your an active supporter of ANTIFA, why am I not surprised
2nd question:Whats the challenge?
Out of curiosity, what do you personally do to help combat global warming
What e-bike?2nd question:
5kw Solar panels on the roof - deep freezer on highest setting and only run in sunlight hours - house is smart wired so we can have the ac on when the panels are producing and wound off when not - house is Double insulated.
Fridge run off solar / wind / batteries.
Ebikes to go shopping and other non work stuff.
Recycle everything we can and drop off to recycling centre (no council recycling where i live so the recycling centre is run by volunteers and we all separate and drop our own recycling off)
We are active in the anti fraccing movement in the region)
I quit at work and took a job as supervisor installing what was at the time the largest solar plant in the southern hemisphere.
In my current business (Amongst other things) i set up smart wiring in houses to make them more efficient and set up 12 v solar, wind and battery arrays with inverters to run fridges overnight.
I practise as i preach
The moment it becomes practical to convert my work truck over to electric i will.
Whats the challenge?
Out of curiosity, what do you personally do to help combat global warming
Hey mate something to consider:
There are people whove devoted their lifes work to the study of the climate - usually involving 12+ years of study, a masters or doctorate in that very specific field.
They almost invariably come to the same conclusion as the vast majority of their colleagues that man made climate change is an enormous immediate threat to humankind.
So much so that pretty much the only debate within this scientific community is how bad and how fast the effects will be. This is reflected by a really simple test. Try and find a published peer reviewed paper - written by a scientist with a degree in climate science - that disagrees that mmcc is a threat.
There is still debate within the wider scientific community as oil companies fund many scientists in related disciplines such as geologists to release papers disparaging mmcc - but you never ever see a published peer reviewed paper from a climate scientist disputing it - only ever debating timelines and feedback loop importance.
Hundreds of times ive asked the question in fora all over the internet - show me a published peer reviewed article from a climate scientist disputing mmcc - im yet to receive a single one.
I can point you to a thousand that agree mmcc is a real and present threat.
I was once a skeptic - but that simple test was enough to convince me.
Try it for yourself - you will think you’ve found one - look the author up and find they have no qualifications in climate science - they are geos, bsc’s mathematicians - anything but climate scientists - and they always funded by the oil industry or flat out own fossil fuel companies.
Theres one famous one from canada where he tried to sue a media company for branding him a fraud but after a legal fight where he was ordered to hand over his university records showing his qualifications in climate science he quietly dropped the case.
It takes 12+ years to train a climate scientist - the concept that a geologist can write a paper on climate science is up there with the idea of getting a plumber in to fix an electrical fault in your house.
You wouldnt think of it would you?
So please - try my test - look for a published peer reviewed paper from a climate scientist. Not a geo, not a astrophysicist, not a mathmatician
Climate science is a pretty specialised field where someone gaining credentials in the field has to start with a strong background in a physics/ maths discipline - not finish with that.
If you cant find one - please rethink your position. If you can - please post it here.
Watch these clips and then think about how these sole factors render climate computer prediction models redundant.
"...........no two Indian Ocean dipole events, and no two set of impacts are the same..........."
"...........no two set of SAM events, and no two set of impacts are exactly the same..........."
Now take this information and add in countless more variables and you will get some idea why the majority of climate prediction models should be ignored.
Not familiar with this person, but there's a reason why there's 7 day forecasts. Once you go too far beyond them, the variables are too great to be worth any value.
Cheers, but I don't need to read his stuff to identify scientific fraud when I see it.